PDA

View Full Version : Radical Combat Reform



T10
21-05-2012, 14:15
Ok, this isn't a "nice" maneuver: Player Blue has a regiment and a monster fighting against Player Red's regiment. The monster is in corner-to-corner contact with the enemy on the left side of the combat , and after a round of combat elects to make a combat reform by moving into corner-to-corner contact with a different enemy model on the right side of the combat. Maybe he wants to getinto contact with that model, or he wants to avoid an approaching Red unit poised to join the combat.

140836

It seems legitimate:


The monster is a unit in its own right and is entitled to make combat reforms.
We can assume the is not moved more than twice it's Movement: Let's say this is a monster with Movement 4 or better.
Reforming does not leave any enemy models dropping out of contact.
The reforming model is placed into contact with an enemy in the same combat, and on the same side (front) of the enemy unit.


But dodgy...

-T10

Valaraukar
21-05-2012, 14:48
Certainly appears legitimate.

Grit
21-05-2012, 15:02
Thought you couldn't move models that were in B2B already,can only reform to bring more models into contact?

mkhurly
21-05-2012, 15:04
I'm not sure he can move through a unit though.

JustinDonnelly
21-05-2012, 15:27
The way I read the rule is that any model in B2B cannot move even if it was to move into contact with the same enemy.

theunwantedbeing
21-05-2012, 15:41
I can't see why it's not legal.

Dodgy yes, but legal.

Hulkster
21-05-2012, 16:00
If a model is in B2B contact in cannot be moved except with the make way rule.

At least that's how I have always played it

BattleofLund
21-05-2012, 16:09
Thought you couldn't move models that were in B2B already,can only reform to bring more models into contact?

That's what I thought too. But the last paragraph of 'Reforming from victory' on p55 states:

'The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish.'

As the original post says, though: dodgy, that monster's reform.

Artiee
21-05-2012, 16:13
What I get is its a Monster and a Unit.. The monster is not part of the unit. (monsters can't join units).

Since its 2 "units", that would not be legal.


A unit can't switch places with another unit.

A unit can't move thou a another unit.

Smogg
21-05-2012, 16:55
I believe you still have to keep the center point of the unit as written page 14.

GodlessM
21-05-2012, 17:03
I'm not sure he can move through a unit though.

This is why I am against it as well. A reform is movement after all and you are not permitted to move through a unit.

Artiee
21-05-2012, 17:14
I believe you still have to keep the center point of the unit as written page 14.

The FAQ removed the center point restriction for the combat reform.

T10
21-05-2012, 17:20
This is why I am against it as well. A reform is movement after all and you are not permitted to move through a unit.

So you'd be ok with it if the monster had sufficient Movement so that twice this value would be sufficient to move it around the other unit? Or if the monster had the Flying special rule?

The bearded one
21-05-2012, 17:31
While you don't need to keep the centre of the unit on the same spot when making a combat reform, I don't think you could execute a reform like indicated, where the unit/model is removed in its entirity from its original location. That opens up the possibility for absurd reforms, though this one also seems to push it a bit, with the model not simply reforming, but teleporting.

Artiee
21-05-2012, 17:41
So you'd be ok with it if the monster had sufficient Movement so that twice this value would be sufficient to move it around the other unit? Or if the monster had the Flying special rule?

That wouldn't be ok either. You can't move out of combat.

MLP
21-05-2012, 17:47
What I get is its a Monster and a Unit.. The monster is not part of the unit. (monsters can't join units).

Since its 2 "units", that would not be legal.


A unit can't switch places with another unit.

I'm pretty sure this is the answer. Each unit can can make a combat reform but two seperate units cannot swap around.

Lord Inquisitor
21-05-2012, 17:57
I would say "none of the models in the unit may move more than twice their Movement rate as a result of a manoeuvre" means that a unit or model executing a combat reform is actually moving. Therefore it must be able to legally move to the final position. You cannot, I would think we can agree, reform in such a manner that some of the unit are on impassable terrain, right?

I would have said that it is implicit that a unit making a reform maneuver must do so in such a way that none of the models execute a move that would be otherwise illegal (moving over units, impassable terrain, etc).

T10
21-05-2012, 19:02
A unit can't switch places with another unit.

You just made that up, actually. It makes sense, but it's still just made up.


That wouldn't be ok either. You can't move out of combat.

Obviously there models are moved to new positions, but I would recommand being careful with arbitrarilly slecting movement restrictions just to counter this specific abuse.

Shifting a unit left or right to get more models into combat is fair use of a combat reform, but it is effectively sideways movement, something units are not normally allowed to do as part of normal movement: it is a special maneuver and then even restricted to half movement.

It is practical to physically remove models from close combat and placing them in a new position rather than breaking up the unit an sliding the models around on the table. It's not fair to assume that a single-model unit being repositioned left or right is handled different.

It is questionable to what extent a reform can be considered movement. I don't think a unit partially within a venom thicket should be required to make dangerous terrain tests for making a reform (I don't quite see how one would reasonably keep track of which models would need to test).

There also seems to be an assumption that all combat is worked out on ground level. This is certainly the most common situation with ground troops fighting ground troops. But who's to say that models aren't making use of their special movement abilities during combat? Flying models that swoop over the ranks of the enemies, Etheral creatures slipping in and out of walls, Striders, uh, striding back and forth.

I doubt anyone would begrudge a Wight the ability to reposition on the other side of an impassable obstacle (moving through it, you see) so why not allow a flyer to do the same (flying over it). And if you can fly over an obstacle then surely you can fly over an interposing unit.

bad dice
21-05-2012, 19:35
You do realise its not a reform right?
A reform lets you change your facing or formation.
Not the location where the unit is at.

The fact that you don't need to reform around your centre any more does not make it legal to move the monster.

Now if it was a charterer on a monster mount that joined the unit then yes totally legal since your Chancing formation

Tough it would still earn my seal of warhammer rule bending disapproval

Artiee
21-05-2012, 19:48
You just made that up, actually. It makes sense, but it's still just made up.


Ok.. Show me where units can move though each other in the BRB or FAQ.

Deprive
21-05-2012, 19:51
With the diagram given you would not be able to move the
Monster as you would be leaving a model that was in combat all alone - the back left blue model ( regardless of if you could jump to the other side

T10
21-05-2012, 19:53
Ok.. Show me where units can move though each other in the BRB or FAQ.

I am afraid the onus is on you.

bad dice
21-05-2012, 20:01
With the diagram given you would not be able to move the
Monster as you would be leaving a model that was in combat all alone - the back left blue model ( regardless of if you could jump to the other side

You do know the monster belongs to the blue player right?

But like I said its not a reform. Since you do more than change faceing/formation. So no you can't do it

Artiee
21-05-2012, 20:02
I am afraid the onus is on you.

Actually its you. Because you said its made up, therefore you are saying that untis can move thou each other. I may have used the word switch,, but the meaning of it is move thou.

T10
21-05-2012, 20:11
You do realise its not a reform right?
A reform lets you change your facing or formation.
Not the location where the unit is at.

The fact that you don't need to reform around your centre any more does not make it legal to move the monster.



With all due respect, you need to brush up on your basic combat reform skill set. The following is an entirely legal combat reform:

140894

It mainly differs from the OP in that it can't be considered abusive: After all, it brings more models into the combat instead of artifically maintaining a "clipping". The distance the model gets to move in this fashion is in theory limited by it's Movement x2, but in practice it is limited to the width of the base of the model it starts out in corner-to-corner contact with.


Now if it was a charterer on a monster mount that joined the unit then yes totally legal since your Chancing formation

Tough it would still earn my seal of warhammer rule bending disapproval

So if it was clearly legal you would still disapprove? Are you sure you're adding anything constructive to this debate? I don't see it.

-T10

T10
21-05-2012, 20:20
Actually its you. Because you said its made up, therefore you are saying that untis can move thou each other. I may have used the word switch,, but the meaning of it is move thou.

Yes, you did say "switch places", and I'm holding you to that. The rules do not deal with units switching places in a combat, so saying that they can't is a made-up rule.

What you meant to write is what you should have written.

-T10

Lord Inquisitor
21-05-2012, 20:23
It is questionable to what extent a reform can be considered movement. I don't think a unit partially within a venom thicket should be required to make dangerous terrain tests for making a reform (I don't quite see how one would reasonably keep track of which models would need to test).
This is a good question. We came across this situation several times before. We came to the conclusion that yes, it was considered movement and any models moving in, out or through the terrain need take a dangerous terrain test. Other situations like spells or earthshaker cannons can cause this. It can be difficult to work out in the case of the venom thicket but usually it isn't too hard. These sorts of effects are pretty rare and normally a reform doesn't trigger dangerous terrain.


There also seems to be an assumption that all combat is worked out on ground level. This is certainly the most common situation with ground troops fighting ground troops. But who's to say that models aren't making use of their special movement abilities during combat? Flying models that swoop over the ranks of the enemies, Etheral creatures slipping in and out of walls, Striders, uh, striding back and forth.

I doubt anyone would begrudge a Wight the ability to reposition on the other side of an impassable obstacle (moving through it, you see) so why not allow a flyer to do the same (flying over it). And if you can fly over an obstacle then surely you can fly over an interposing unit.
This is a good point. I would agree with this, an etherial unit should be able to reform through an impassable obstacle, but that's because they're given specific exception. With a flier it's a bit more tricky (they sometimes are required to move on the ground) but that's limited to flee or pursue so I'd say technically you can fly when reforming. Bit of a grey area but it seems legit. So in the original example I'd say that reform can be made, but only by a flier (or in some manner allowed to move over or through units), which makes some sense.

That presumes you can make a fly move when reforming. For example, if you had a unit of 30 furies, would you use their M4 or M10 for the maximum reform distance? Seems to be the flying M10.


You do realise its not a reform right?
A reform lets you change your facing or formation.
Not the location where the unit is at.

The fact that you don't need to reform around your centre any more does not make it legal to move the monster.
It's entirely legal to move the monster. In the example given above, assuming the unit to the side of the monster were not there, it would be 100% legal to slide the monster along, providing everyone in contact at the start of the move is still in contact at the end and you are still in contact with the same flank, etc. Individual models can move, and the center of the unit need not be in the same place, therefore you can move models physically up to twice their move value. This applies to units as well as monsters. Edit: as T10 has shown above with his rather nice diagram.

Artiee
21-05-2012, 20:26
Yes, you did say "switch places", and I'm holding you to that. The rules do not deal with units switching places in a combat, so saying that they can't is a made-up rule.

What you meant to write is what you should have written.

-T10

I've already stated that the switch is in the meaning of move thou. I've already corrected it, but will correct in it the post for you.

Now show us where they can move thou each other as you are stating.

T10
21-05-2012, 21:42
I've already stated that the switch is in the meaning of move thou. I've already corrected it, but will correct in it the post for you.

Now show us where they can move thou each other as you are stating.

I've made no such statement.

Edit: Also, it is unfair to ask that I change my response to your intial statement just because it was ill conceive/poorly phrased/you changed your mind/realized you were wrong.

Edit: The issue at heart here is (as you originally objected to) that the units do switch place. In assuming that the "cannot move through unit" is an applicable restriction you only add further legitimacy to the maneuver as units not bound by said restriction (e.g. model with the Flying special rule) must surely be permitted use the combat reform to switch places. And even in case of ground based models it is not outside the realm of possibility that they may have sufficient Movement to bring them around the interposing unit. Remember that the combat reform is legit as if the models moved are "placed back into contact" with an enemy. Technically there is no restriction on briefly leaving base contact with enemy models during the reform.



-T10

Artiee
21-05-2012, 22:06
You did when you said the switch of units is made up when the context of the statement is moving thou.

bad dice
22-05-2012, 08:42
This is a good question. We came across this situation several times before. We came to the conclusion that yes, it was considered movement and any models moving in, out or through the terrain need take a dangerous terrain test. Other situations like spells or earthshaker cannons can cause this. It can be difficult to work out in the case of the venom thicket but usually it isn't too hard. These sorts of effects are pretty rare and normally a reform doesn't trigger dangerous terrain.


This is a good point. I would agree with this, an etherial unit should be able to reform through an impassable obstacle, but that's because they're given specific exception. With a flier it's a bit more tricky (they sometimes are required to move on the ground) but that's limited to flee or pursue so I'd say technically you can fly when reforming. Bit of a grey area but it seems legit. So in the original example I'd say that reform can be made, but only by a flier (or in some manner allowed to move over or through units), which makes some sense.

That presumes you can make a fly move when reforming. For example, if you had a unit of 30 furies, would you use their M4 or M10 for the maximum reform distance? Seems to be the flying M10.


It's entirely legal to move the monster. In the example given above, assuming the unit to the side of the monster were not there, it would be 100% legal to slide the monster along, providing everyone in contact at the start of the move is still in contact at the end and you are still in contact with the same flank, etc. Individual models can move, and the center of the unit need not be in the same place, therefore you can move models physically up to twice their move value. This applies to units as well as monsters. Edit: as T10 has shown above with his rather nice diagram.

NO its not. Its just whisfull thinking. You can only change facing or formation whit a reform. In case of units this can involve moveing models. But if you have only one model you don't have to move the model to change faceing or formation. So no you can't move them. It right in the rules for reforming.

T10
22-05-2012, 10:49
This is a good question. We came across this situation several times before. We came to the conclusion that yes, it was considered movement and any models moving in, out or through the terrain need take a dangerous terrain test. Other situations like spells or earthshaker cannons can cause this. It can be difficult to work out in the case of the venom thicket but usually it isn't too hard. These sorts of effects are pretty rare and normally a reform doesn't trigger dangerous terrain.


Something was bugging me about this: If re-arranging models is to be considered movement, and thus trigger dangerous terrain tests in a Venom Thicket, then what about units in close combat? In practice, casualties are removed from the rear, but the same sort of common sense that considers a reform movement should also consider the models "stepping up" as movement.

-T10

JustinDonnelly
22-05-2012, 12:38
Something was bugging me about this: If re-arranging models is to be considered movement, and thus trigger dangerous terrain tests in a Venom Thicket, then what about units in close combat? In practice, casualties are removed from the rear, but the same sort of common sense that considers a reform movement should also consider the models "stepping up" as movement.

-T10

Also, this should then apply to spells that are triggered on movement EG. Rod of flaming death (i like that idea!) :D

-- Just my opinion on my understanding of the rules --

Back to the original question/comment; The combat reform states that it follows the normal rules for a reform with the few exceptions (centre of unit, b2b contact models). So looking at the normal reform rules, do you not have to maintain the "1" away" rule? The only time you are immune to that rule is when you are charging/fleeing right? So if you are in combat already, reforming does not count as charging so when you replace your monster he would have to be 1" away from friendly models? Maybe then, if there was one less model the other side then you could, but then you would have had a different position on the charge to maximise contact perhaps.

Im not for or against saying this is correct incorrect, just adding my 2 pence to the debate. Personally i wouldn't execute this manoeuvre and would be very "unfriendly" towards an opponent attempting to do such a thing. TBH its just another missed "What If..." by GW. They are good at that after all!

Fubar
22-05-2012, 12:47
That would not be legal, you can make a combat reform after combat enabling you to shift along, but you must have at least part of the base is somewhere in the original footprint. this would comply with the reform rules and the FAQ stating that the centre point does not need to remain the same.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 13:28
It depends how you read the 'intent' (yay) of that sentence, technically reforms allow you to change numbers of ranks and files and direction whilst maintaining the centre of the unit. The FAQ removes that restriction for combat reforms presumably because otherwise you couldn't change the number of ranks without shifting the centre toward or away from the enemy as your unit is now less or more deep. I am not sure it is meant to allow movement laterally with respect to the enemy but another nice vaguely worded GW ruling leaves it a bit unclear, you obviously can't slide around like this with a normal reform and you clearly can't do it very much normally with a combat reform as you are not allowed to leave models previously in combat out of combat, within those restrictions can you move your unit sideways well RAW yes I don't see anything preventing it but the more I read it the more I think it was just meant to allow any significant reform of numbers of ranks and files to occur whilst in combat but they haven't though through all of the implications of the wording of their response. Clearly if this was the case then the issue raised here would be illegal but then again I could be wrong as to the intent. As I said earlier it seems permissible given the current wording but I don't think it matches their intent and believe this could do with clarification in a future FAQ.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 15:11
NO its not. Its just whisfull thinking. You can only change facing or formation whit a reform. In case of units this can involve moveing models. But if you have only one model you don't have to move the model to change faceing or formation. So no you can't move them. It right in the rules for reforming.
I think you're pretty alone on this, sir. You can reform a unit of a single model. You turn the unit, arranged in a new formation of 1 file and 1 rank. Normally this means, due to having to keep the center-point the same, that all you can achieve is a turn, so it's pretty pointless. However, without this requirement, there's no reason you cannot move a single model through a reform because it's a single model. There's no such rule.

Consider this example:

140987

The first case I'm sure we agree is legal. Even though the new formation is the same as the old formation, the lateral move is legal as the new formation does not have to have the same center-point. Equally, even though the exact models in contact with 1 and 2 have changed, this is legal as everyone in contact before is now in contact after.

The second case is the same. Formation hasn't changed except for center-point. In rules terms it is identical.

I see the first case done more commonly than the second (not much incentive for most monsters to get more enemy troops in contact) and it's more likely to be the case that the unit reforms to the monster, but it is frequently done none-the-less.



Something was bugging me about this: If re-arranging models is to be considered movement, and thus trigger dangerous terrain tests in a Venom Thicket, then what about units in close combat? In practice, casualties are removed from the rear, but the same sort of common sense that considers a reform movement should also consider the models "stepping up" as movement.
Stepping up is neither Movement, nor a Manoeuvre. You are not limited to 2xM for the maximum distance. While, yes, in reality troops would be literally stepping up, in game terms it is not considered a Movement. A reform, on the other hand, is considered Movement.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 15:54
I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that it is obvious and clear Lord Inquisitor. Before the FAQ this was clearly not allowed, what then was the reason for changing the wording in the Errata? Your assumption appears to be that contrary to normal reforms they simply felt that units ought to be able to slide from side to side in combat but why should this be the case and why was it omitted originally?

It is of course possible they simply forgot all about this but I would contend that it is more of an assumption and therefore using Occam's razor less likely to be the case than my assumption which is that as is so often the case with GW they did not think through the full implications of their rules which as I have noted above makes any type of reform which would change the number of ranks in a unit illegal in combat as the position of the front of the unit is fixed as it is contacting another unit and normally using a reform this would move in order to keep the centre in the same place and prevent abuses of reform to move.

T10
22-05-2012, 16:05
So looking at the normal reform rules, do you not have to maintain the "1" away" rule?

It seems not: the rules for maximising contact will (often) force your units to fight side by side. Applying the 1" rule to these units' combat reforms might well force them to move models out of contact with the enemy, which is not allowed. You don't get permission to ignore the 1" rule, but you may be required to break it.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 16:08
I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that it is obvious and clear Lord Inquisitor. Before the FAQ this was clearly not allowed, what then was the reason for changing the wording in the Errata? Your assumption appears to be that contrary to normal reforms they simply felt that units ought to be able to slide from side to side in combat but why should this be the case and why was it omitted originally?

Simple. The combat reform was designed to allow two units not in full contact to be able to get to grips with one-another. My guess is that they simply didn't realise in the original text that the requirement to keep the center-point the same actually just flat out prevents almost all combat reforms that aren't a simple turn. It's more than just the sliding issue, it can prevent just about any reform.

Consider this:

140993

The reform, which is a very standard reform and obviously intended, cannot be done if the center-point need be kept the same.

The other thing is that sliding does seem intended. Remember that in 6th and 7th sliding wasn't exactly in the rules, but was "recommended" to keep the game flowing. Well in 8th you still can't slide on the charge but you can slide as a reform, so while clipping can still occur in rare cases, it can be remedied with a simple reform. The intent throughout warhammer's editions is to have "proper" combats as much as possible with clipping being evil and wrong.

In any case, the post-errata rules are very clear, whatever the rationale for the change. You do not need to keep the center point the same, regardless of the formation and whether the number of ranks and files are altered. I would not regard a slide as an "abuse" at all, it is entirely reasonable use of the rule (and typically is used to increase the number of models fighting in the combat - which is right and proper!).


Back to the original question/comment; The combat reform states that it follows the normal rules for a reform with the few exceptions (centre of unit, b2b contact models). So looking at the normal reform rules, do you not have to maintain the "1" away" rule? The only time you are immune to that rule is when you are charging/fleeing right? So if you are in combat already, reforming does not count as charging so when you replace your monster he would have to be 1" away from friendly models? Maybe then, if there was one less model the other side then you could, but then you would have had a different position on the charge to maximise contact perhaps.
Considering that a unit performing a combat reform is not allowed to move outside of base contact with the enemy, I think we can safely say the 1" rule doesn't apply to combat reforms.

T10
22-05-2012, 16:13
Before the FAQ this was clearly not allowed, what then was the reason for changing the wording in the Errata? Your assumption appears to be that contrary to normal reforms they simply felt that units ought to be able to slide from side to side in combat but why should this be the case and why was it omitted originally?


Before the FAQ you were required to maintain the center point of the unit, which simply does not work: For every two ranks you reduce the depth of a unit the front rank moves BACK one rank, thus taking the unit out of combat. Adding ranks (imagine a horde formation attacked by a single-model unit such as a dragon) moves the front rank forward with each rank added.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 16:27
I agree the intention is to allow normal reforms as pictured to occur in combat but I am not convinced on the sliding argument, as you say the above could not happen without removing the stipulation to keep the centre point of the unit in the same place (well without instead moving the enemy which I hope no-one is considering!) so I am not sure why we need look further for a reason and assume it was also to allow movement of a unit laterally.

Your examples of sliding are not quite consistent though, why not simply leave it as it was in 7th if sliding was intended but not enforced instead they specifically forbid it in the charging section. Clipping can be 'remedied' by a reform but why not simply allow it when closing the door etc. and combat is met in that case? It just seems a very circuitous method to allow sliding and one which had to be Errata'd into the book this doesn't strike me as likely.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 16:29
Before the FAQ you were required to maintain the center point of the unit, which simply does not work: For every two ranks you reduce the depth of a unit the front rank moves BACK one rank, thus taking the unit out of combat. Adding ranks (imagine a horde formation attacked by a single-model unit such as a dragon) moves the front rank forward with each rank added.

Please read my posts that is exactly what I have said repeatedly now and I believe the ONLY reason the errata was made not to allow this sliding from side to side.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 16:41
There were two changes to the rules for combat reforms and the second was this:

p55 second paragraph change to:
and the unit may not reform in such a way as to contact a different facing on any enemy unit it is in contact with
This wasn't required before because a unit could not change the center-point so obviously couldn't change which flank it was in contact with. The center-point rule has obvious issues with combat reforms, so they removed this restriction but added a new one to prevent people sliding around someone's front and contacting their flank! Clearly here they have considered a unit sliding, would you agree? Sliding is fine - but not to be used to allow you to change the facing you are in contact with. This seems to be the intent as well as the letter.

In any case, however, the rules are clear and sliding is legal in normal circumstances. It is a regular tactic in my experience. I'm not sure about hopping over another unit, which is what this thread is about, but there's no issue with sliding a unit along as part of a combat reform so long as all the requirements of the combat reform are met while you do it.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 17:02
This could also be to account for single models, consider the following if you have a single model in corner to corner contact with a unit then by reforming you could rotate the model 90 degrees such that it was in the units flank corner to corner. I am not saying this is or is not the case but I find it an odd way to introduce sliding and don't think it is sufficiently clear at present. The only line I find which hints that sliding may be intended is the last sentence which reads 'the model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish' however again this may just be to allow characters for instance to move within a unit as part of a reform to get away from another character for instance or to minimise attacks by moving to the corner. The examples given also make no mention of sliding they say most commonly it is used to rotate a unit so it is no longer engaged o the flank or rear and that also it may be used to increase frontage but not a peep about moving from side to side.

bad dice
22-05-2012, 17:09
I doubt I would agree that these thing are totally legal if the orange unit reforms. They sure are if the blue player reforms.
Also this seems tot at least be in the spirit of getting more models into combat

But Here page 14

In the explanation box

When a unit refom it can change its number of ranks or files(A) the direction its facing (B) or both (C)
Note there is no its location (D).

Also the rules for reform state
A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once by means of a manoeuvre called a reform.
Nothing stated on moving it to a different location.

Also doing things like this is sure seems like trying to find way to exploit the game cause it makes no sense to me to teleport you monster to the other side ,except for gaining a advantage that is doubtfully legal.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 17:18
This could also be to account for single models, consider the following if you have a single model in corner to corner contact with a unit then by reforming you could rotate the model 90 degrees such that it was in the units flank corner to corner. I am not saying this is or is not the case but I find it an odd way to introduce sliding and don't think it is sufficiently clear at present. The only line I find which hints that sliding may be intended is the last sentence which reads 'the model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish' however again this may just be to allow characters for instance to move within a unit as part of a reform to get away from another character for instance or to minimise attacks by moving to the corner. The examples given also make no mention of sliding they say most commonly it is used to rotate a unit so it is no longer engaged o the flank or rear and that also it may be used to increase frontage but not a peep about moving from side to side.

Valaraukar, unfortunately as with many discussions that come down to intent, I don't know what their intent truly was. I am inclined to think that the intent was to allow sliding, if for no reason other than when I saw the FAQ the very first thought I had was "wow that means we can slide!", it certainly seemed to be the gist of the rule to me.

The rules, however, are crystal clear that since the center point does not need to be in the same place, you can move the models in the unit, even a unit of one, laterally during a combat reform. Your requirements are not moving more than 2xM, not leaving any previously engaged models in the either unit unengaged (although they do not need to be engaged with the same models) and not changing the facing you are engaged with.

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates in any way that sliding is not intended or to be frowned upon. Sliding can only be used to increase the number of models in base contact, for the most part it is pretty much the exact spirit of the rules - to prevent clipping and have "proper" combats. Do you think that it is the intent that two units that are corner to corner should not be able to reform into contact? For example:

140997

Do you really think the intent of the reform rule, particularly the errata that removes the requirement for the center-point to remain the same, that these two units shouldn't be able to slide over and engage properly?

In any case, intent is unknowable but the rules are clear. I've played sliding innumerable times at tournaments and I've never had anyone have an issue. It is, in my experience, very normal.


I doubt I would agree that these thing are totally legal if the orange unit reforms. They sure are if the blue player reforms.
Also this seems tot at least be in the spirit of getting more models into combat
Just to be clear you are talking about this diagram, right?

140998

You are saying that it is illegal for the orange unit to reform in the top diagram, but it would be legal for the blue unit to make a move in the other direction that results in the same outcome? Why would there be any difference?


But Here page 14

In the explanation box

When a unit refom it can change its number of ranks or files(A) the direction its facing (B) or both (C)
Note there is no its location (D).

Also the rules for reform state
A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once by means of a manoeuvre called a reform.
Nothing stated on moving it to a different location.
And a unit making a reform cannot change it's location, because it must keep the center point the same. This is undeniably true. A combat reform, however, is different and is specifically allowed to change its center point (and by definition, its location).


Also doing things like this is sure seems like trying to find way to exploit the game cause it makes no sense to me to teleport you monster to the other side ,except for gaining a advantage that is doubtfully legal.
Let's be very clear about what we're talking about. Using a combat reform to slide is not in any way trying to exploit the game. Indeed, it is a very useful tool to allow you to avoid clipping and it is 100% within the spirit of the rules that units be engaged with as many models in the front rank as possible, I hope we can all agree on that. It is commonly used and I'm quite surprised that anyone should find it objectionable.

The original example of a monster hopping from one side to the other is another matter. Now I have already said that I do not think it is legal for the monster to do this because the monster is not allowed to move through another unit. Only if the monster is allowed to move through or over other units would this be possible. That basically just leaves it a possibility for fliers and it is a good question as to whether you can use the glide movement during a reform. This isn't even necessarily a question of "abusing" the rules. Let's say I have a unit of 30 furies and they are a single file across the board. When I reform, are they limited to their ground movement (2x4) or their glide movement (2x10)? I'm not sure, I think as far as I can tell there's nothing stopping them from using their flight move of 10 for reforms but it is far from explicit in the rules.

T10
22-05-2012, 18:22
Valarakar: I don't quite see what you object to. Obviously you are on the level with the point that the center of the reformed unit need not be in the same place, yet you seem to have issues with this moving the unit to a new location.

What sort of criteria would you suggest to determine if a unit that reforms is still in the same location?

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 18:40
I find the intent of rules important, as I have said within the letter of the rules as written I can find no reason you cannot slide, it does not break any of the stipulations or at least doesn't need to as long as you do it correctly. I just wonder why no mention of using it in this way is presented within the rules (not that I expect every rule to have an exhaustive list of examples of all of the ways it can be used but bear with me), the only rule which allows it had to be added an errata and to me looks as if it was added to solve an altogether separate issue which was allowing you to expand / contract frontage and accounting for the movement of the centre of the unit toward or away from the enemy, I am concerned that this may be an unintended consequence of their solution to the above and open to abuse.

For instance whilst we can all agree (well or mostly at least) it is a good thing that this allows for expanding frontage such that units are not stuck with minimal contact you can also pull off some fairly sneaky maneuvers with it. An example from the top of my head is two equally wide units engaged in the front with a third unit ready to charge next turn :

_____Z
xxxxx -> xxxxxZ
yyyyy yyyyy

Only unit y can combat reform to dodge this charge as shown below, this seems to me in my opinion be to go against the intent of this rule:

_____Z_______Z
xxxxx -> xxxxx
yyyyy yyyyy

Unit Z must charge in the front due to the units respective facings but there is now no space on the corner as there was prior to the combat reform, this seems an unintended consequence to me of allowing units to reform in any way by removing the stipulation of keeping the units centre in the same place and I would be annoyed if someone pulled this on me.

bad dice
22-05-2012, 18:42
Cause in the case of the blue player at least one of the models stays at the same location so they did only change there formation (not around the centre tough)
While in the case of the orange player they moved to a other location.

I would not object to sliding over on any occasion legal or not. Cause it brings more models in combat and that seems fair and logical.
And more fighting seems fun to me winning or losing.

The monster moving to the other sides is a other thing al together tough.
It only goes to a different location, and nothing else. That seems like a way to cheat some movement distance in or get it to hit a other unit on a pursue move. That looks a lot like rule abuse to me.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 18:45
I would not object to sliding over on any occasion legal or not. Cause it brings more models in combat and that seems fair and logical.
And more fighting seems fun to me winning or losing.

Not necessarily if the units are equal width or the smaller one is sliding it may bring no more models into contact but allows sneaky tricks as above, this is my objection. Also your example about where you will overrun / pursue is a good example of this.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 18:50
I find the intent of rules important, as I have said within the letter of the rules as written I can find no reason you cannot slide, it does not break any of the stipulations or at least doesn't need to as long as you do it correctly. I just wonder why no mention of using it in this way is presented within the rules (not that I expect every rule to have an exhaustive list of examples of all of the ways it can be used but bear with me), the only rule which allows it had to be added an errata and to me looks as if it was added to solve an altogether separate issue which was allowing you to expand / contract frontage and accounting for the movement of the centre of the unit toward or away from the enemy, I am concerned that this may be an unintended consequence of their solution to the above and open to abuse.

For instance whilst we can all agree (well or mostly at least) it is a good thing that this allows for expanding frontage such that units are not stuck with minimal contact you can also pull off some fairly sneaky maneuvers with it. An example from the top of my head is two equally wide units engaged in the front with a third unit ready to charge next turn :

_____Z
xxxxx -> xxxxxZ
yyyyy yyyyy

Only unit y can combat reform to dodge this charge as shown below, this seems to me in my opinion be to go against the intent of this rule:

_____Z_______Z
xxxxx -> xxxxx
yyyyy yyyyy

Unit Z must charge in the front due to the units respective facings but there is now no space on the corner as there was prior to the combat reform, this seems an unintended consequence to me of allowing units to reform in any way by removing the stipulation of keeping the units centre in the same place and I would be annoyed if someone pulled this on me.

It's difficult to see what you're saying from the diagrams but I get the gist. You nudge the units, slightly and prevent the third unit from getting in. Yes, you can have effects on the game through a reform. Then again, there are plenty of ways you could affect other units with a combat reform anyway without sliding. I can provide examples if you wish but once again, clearly as in this example:

141002

... the slide is entirely reasonable and well within the spirit of the rules. I do not consider it an abuse of the rules if blue slides over so that it is fully in base-to-base with the orange unit and all models are engaged even if a second unit of orange's now cannot get into base contact with blue. I don't see this as any more abusive than, say, charging into combat to be safe from missile fire.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 18:59
I think we can probably agree to disagree, I respect your opinion and can see how you arrive at it but this is where things become difficult isn't it when rules are not completely clear. You say you find the above within the spirit of the rules I am uncomfortable with it and we both find the original example to be stretching the limits of what is reasonable and yet I have yet to see anyone find a hard and fast ruling which prevents it. It breaks none of the stipulations laid out for combat reforms, everyone originally engaged still is, no new facings have been engaged and the centres have moved. Combat reforming gives no details of how a unit moves to achieve this so it is impossible to say if a unit moves through another when switching places or if it goes around, indeed this even seems to some extent to be allowed for models within a unit such as a character who can move from one end of a unit to the other now he either runs around the back and everyone shuffles along to accomodate him or they each step away from the combat to let him through how can we say this is allowed but the original example is not. Yet still I stand by my belief that this is not the way it is intended and would not play the rule this way but it is difficult to prove to someone who does how and why.

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2012, 19:03
Unit Z must charge in the front due to the units respective facings but there is now no space on the corner as there was prior to the combat reform, this seems an unintended consequence to me of allowing units to reform in any way by removing the stipulation of keeping the units centre in the same place and I would be annoyed if someone pulled this on me.

I'de like to point out that both sides are allowed a combat reform.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 19:06
Indeed, although it's only certain for one side. Which brings up another interesting point if you allow sliding potentially your whole combat can crab walk sideways across the battlefield using the above sort of maneuver by one side sliding then the other, do people really think this is a desirable or intended effect?

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 19:12
It might be noted that this only works if both units have the same frontage and even then you can only crab-walk a base's width a turn. You still have to get all models in contact, remember.

This seems like a very flimsy argument when you consider the alternative is to disallow clipped units from engaging, which is certainly not the intent of the rules.

bad dice
22-05-2012, 19:12
@)Valaraukar
No only the player who won the role of can slide his unit once the smaller unit is in combat the sliding is over.
Of course if they are both the same base size and same file they could move 2 MAX models sideways every combat round if you wanted to.

T10
22-05-2012, 19:17
Only unit y can combat reform to dodge this charge as shown below, this seems to me in my opinion be to go against the intent of this rule:

_____Z_______Z
xxxxx -> xxxxx
yyyyy yyyyy

Unit Z must charge in the front due to the units respective facings but there is now no space on the corner as there was prior to the combat reform, this seems an unintended consequence to me of allowing units to reform in any way by removing the stipulation of keeping the units centre in the same place and I would be annoyed if someone pulled this on me.

It is a valid concern, and any player that has been on the receiving side of such a supporting charge will instinctively realise the tactical value of making a combat reform to avoid this. However, it works both ways since a slight shift to the left or right may allow the reforming player to bring in a supporting unit of his own! Who's to say which player is entitled to this advantage?

The best thing the rules can offer is a roll-off to determine who performs their combat reform first, a mechanic that at least suggests that the designers are aware that players may want to make use of combat reforms to gain a tactical advantage.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 19:21
Yes that's what I meant it seems a bizarre corollary of this rule. You make out like I am advocating clipping but actually it ought to be a fairly rare occurrence given 8ths charging mechanisms, you MUST wheel to maximise contact when you charge clipping can only occur where this is blocked due to an intervening unit or piece of terrain meaning that your one wheel must be used in such a way that you can't maximise immediately. I would argue that this sliding mechanism is open to significant abuse at least as much so as forced or otherwise clipping which is very difficult to pull off intentionally and I can honestly say unintentionally has rarely happened to me, normally as I have said this is usually due to an intervening unit or piece of terrain in which case due to the 1" rule this may well still prevent sliding after making contact anyway. Also unless you are one rank deep you can still choose to maximise further by expanding frontage from rear ranks. The examples you have chosen are deliberately extreme and not a fair representation of the two scenarios we are talking about.

bad dice
22-05-2012, 20:16
Yea that the problem I have whit it two

The ways to abuse it seem to outweigh the clipping issues by a large ammount.

GodlessM
22-05-2012, 20:18
So you'd be ok with it if the monster had sufficient Movement so that twice this value would be sufficient to move it around the other unit? Or if the monster had the Flying special rule?

No because that would be moving out of close combat and then back into it. With a combat reform at least one model from the unit stays in combat at all times.

T10
22-05-2012, 20:57
No because that would be moving out of close combat and then back into it. With a combat reform at least one model from the unit stays in combat at all times.
Ok, I'm going to need a page refence for that so I can look it up. A quote would actually help too.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 21:25
Yes that's what I meant it seems a bizarre corollary of this rule. You make out like I am advocating clipping but actually it ought to be a fairly rare occurrence given 8ths charging mechanisms, you MUST wheel to maximise contact when you charge clipping can only occur where this is blocked due to an intervening unit or piece of terrain meaning that your one wheel must be used in such a way that you can't maximise immediately.
Clipping is very common still in the area of multiple combats. The most likely source of clipping is not when one unit charges another, but in situations where one unit leaves a combat.

For example:

141014

In this case the blue unit has charged in to support the blue monster (e.g. orcs charging in to support an arachrinok versus chaos warriors). The monster is killed in the ensuing combat (or flees while the unit holds). The two units are now left clipping rather severely. It is standard in my experience for one unit or the other to reform via what is essentially a slide.


I would argue that this sliding mechanism is open to significant abuse at least as much so as forced or otherwise clipping which is very difficult to pull off intentionally and I can honestly say unintentionally has rarely happened to me, normally as I have said this is usually due to an intervening unit or piece of terrain in which case due to the 1" rule this may well still prevent sliding after making contact anyway. Also unless you are one rank deep you can still choose to maximise further by expanding frontage from rear ranks. The examples you have chosen are deliberately extreme and not a fair representation of the two scenarios we are talking about.
I disagree, these sorts of examples of clipping happen all the time. What's the abuses we're talking about here? Possibly nudging a unit a couple of cm in the rare scenario that both units are exactly the same width? That's an "abuse"? Or is it just a "use", considering you can put the unit in that position legally with a charge? See the following diagram:

141016

The same thing can be achieved with a new charge as much as a reform, is this really "abuse"?


Yea that the problem I have whit it two

The ways to abuse it seem to outweigh the clipping issues by a large ammount.
Right... :eyebrows: I honestly can't believe you mean this. So somehow sliding one unit across to make full contact is "abusive" but clipping is fine? That's bonkers.

In any case, I would remind you both - what you consider abusive or not is rather immaterial. The errata makes sliding 100% legal. You may not like it, but it is in the rules. I personally find it a very useful rule, it prevents clipping in a very satisfying way and it is very much in the spirit of the game in my opinion. I also think it was intended by the errata. Feel free to disagree with me on any of these points - but it is nevertheless legal.

Valaraukar
22-05-2012, 21:32
Indeed as it is currently written as I have stated this is legal but I do not think it was the intent, which brings us back to the original question which many seem to dislike the intent of but can anyone say doesn't follow the rules as written? I've still yet to see any vaguely convincing argument based on what is written that the OPs example is not legal, the closest people have come is saying units can't move through one another but reforming doesn't deal with how or if units are moved they are simply in one state then the other, likewise bringing in such movement based rules brings up other issues such as the 1" rule. Will you when reforming in a multiple combat now move all your units apart an inch as there is no excpetion given to the 1" rule beyond charging and fleeing?

bad dice
22-05-2012, 21:39
What abuse are we talking about well the thing that started this all for one.

Like I said I have noting against sliding.
I do not like the fact that it opens the door to teleporting you monster 10 inches to the other side of the combat

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2012, 21:49
Firstly, pick a question. I don't think a monster can jump over another unit as a slide as I've already stated. That doesn't mean sliding like in my first diagram as a whole is not intended.

Secondly, you think sliding wasn't intended to prevent a very obscure situation (both units same frontage, monster only touching 1 model, some kind of tactical advantage to flipping over) as opposed to sliding to prevent clipping as has been stated as the spirit of the rules many times in the past and an errata issued to explicitly allow units to move their centrepoint?

bad dice
22-05-2012, 22:02
You might notice that the topic should be about the first post so yes I am referring to that.
And I know you don't agree. But if sliding whit not one model staying in place is allowed then yes a dragon could go to the other side
Since he just slides over and since he flies he can move over units.

dral
22-05-2012, 22:10
Interesting discussion, but the way I read it the rulebook doesn't allow the move.

P55 "it cannot be used to get a model out of base contact with an enemy" I view this on a model basis not unit, therefore the models are tied together and can only move from corner to corner but no more. This doesn't stop the 'sliding' type maneuver, although I see this as models not in base contact moving into contact. Those already fighting are restricted by maintaining contact and cannot wander off.

I know that rulebook allows you to enter contact with another enemy, but I view that as in addition to the pre maneuver foe, thereby allowing you to attack someone else, but not denying original enemy his attack.

This seems sensible, to conform to the text and match the reasonable examples discussed, but am I missing something?

bad dice
22-05-2012, 22:21
Interesting discussion, but the way I read it the rulebook doesn't allow the move.

P55 "it cannot be used to get a model out of base contact with an enemy" I view this on a model basis not unit, therefore the models are tied together and can only move from corner to corner but no more. This doesn't stop the 'sliding' type maneuver, although I see this as models not in base contact moving into contact. Those already fighting are restricted by maintaining contact and cannot wander off.

I know that rulebook allows you to enter contact with another enemy, but I view that as in addition to the pre maneuver foe, thereby allowing you to attack someone else, but not denying original enemy his attack.

This seems sensible, to conform to the text and match the reasonable examples discussed, but am I missing something?

yea I think the word model
right about: it cannot be used to get a model out of base contact with an enemy HERE
cause an enemy is just generic and could mean any thing from the individual model to every enemy model on the table.

So while I like your interoperation (a lot) I don't think its that clear cut.

dral
22-05-2012, 22:28
Hmmm. I see your point.

I've been out of the games for a few editions but we certainly were playing 3rd edition with models locked together or considered routing.

HurrDurr
23-05-2012, 01:22
To answer to T10's argument regarding units with the fly rule reforming over other units, that seems to be squished by the rules regarding fleeing/pursuing with a model/unit that has fly as it elaborates on how flying takes too long and puts the model at too much of a risk to perform safely/successfully/effectively. I can provide quotes if needed, will amend this post instead of spamming another.

Lord Inquisitor
23-05-2012, 17:42
Interesting discussion, but the way I read it the rulebook doesn't allow the move.

P55 "it cannot be used to get a model out of base contact with an enemy" I view this on a model basis not unit, therefore the models are tied together and can only move from corner to corner but no more. This doesn't stop the 'sliding' type maneuver, although I see this as models not in base contact moving into contact. Those already fighting are restricted by maintaining contact and cannot wander off.

I know that rulebook allows you to enter contact with another enemy, but I view that as in addition to the pre maneuver foe, thereby allowing you to attack someone else, but not denying original enemy his attack.

This seems sensible, to conform to the text and match the reasonable examples discussed, but am I missing something?
I've never heard this argument before. The full quote is this (with the errata included):

"There are two special restrictions on a combat reform, however - it cannot be used to get a model (friend or foe) out of base contact with the enemy if it was in contact before the reform was made, and the unit may not reform in such a way as to contact a different facing on any enemy unit it is in contact with. The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish."

You're saying that just because it says you can contact a different enemy it doesn't say you can't get out of contact with the original enemy? Hmm, I see your argument. However I don't think this is the meaning of the last sentence, otherwise why would it be required? You could delete the last sentence entirely and it would have the meaning you state, because you could move without getting a model out of base contact with the enemy. The last sentence is clearly permission to move the model in contact with an entirely different model and out of contact with the original model providing they remain engaged with someone.

As you say it wouldn't in any way prevent the "sliding" manoeuvre in any case, but it would negatively impact the ability for characters to move around combats with a combat reform.



To answer to T10's argument regarding units with the fly rule reforming over other units, that seems to be squished by the rules regarding fleeing/pursuing with a model/unit that has fly as it elaborates on how flying takes too long and puts the model at too much of a risk to perform safely/successfully/effectively. I can provide quotes if needed, will amend this post instead of spamming another.
Yeah, quotes would be good because as I see it the only restrictions on using Flight movement is that you are specifically disallowed from flying in a pursuit/flee move but that's the only time you are not allowed to fly.

Once again, what is the answer as to whether my 30-strong unit of furies in a single line can use their Flight move when working out their maximum reform distance (i.e. 2xM)?

bad dice
23-05-2012, 18:51
It could also be a sentence ment to clarify things. The fact that we are discussing it just makes it obvious that it is not all that clear cut as we would like

dral
23-05-2012, 22:20
I can see the point that the second statement could be omitted (although it does make clear something that you are able to do) but your comment on characters adds adds another element I hadn't connected.

I've always considered that the Make Way rule operated under the same principle. That is it allowed a character into combat, choosing a position to fight from, but that rule clearly states that the character must not be engaged. This I see as making it clear a character cannot break contact to fight elsewhere but to allow a maneuverable character a sort of quick mini-reform at the start of combat. This kind of supports my reading?

Fubar
24-05-2012, 05:59
It's difficult to see what you're saying from the diagrams but I get the gist. You nudge the units, slightly and prevent the third unit from getting in. Yes, you can have effects on the game through a reform. Then again, there are plenty of ways you could affect other units with a combat reform anyway without sliding. I can provide examples if you wish but once again, clearly as in this example:

141002

... the slide is entirely reasonable and well within the spirit of the rules. I do not consider it an abuse of the rules if blue slides over so that it is fully in base-to-base with the orange unit and all models are engaged even if a second unit of orange's now cannot get into base contact with blue. I don't see this as any more abusive than, say, charging into combat to be safe from missile fire.

That would be perfectly fine if at least part of the footprint stays the same, what your
Promoting is that the unit could swap corners and magically appear over the other side, which is ofc ridiculous.

bad dice
24-05-2012, 07:02
I can see the point that the second statement could be omitted (although it does make clear something that you are able to do) but your comment on characters adds adds another element I hadn't connected.

I've always considered that the Make Way rule operated under the same principle. That is it allowed a character into combat, choosing a position to fight from, but that rule clearly states that the character must not be engaged. This I see as making it clear a character cannot break contact to fight elsewhere but to allow a maneuverable character a sort of quick mini-reform at the start of combat. This kind of supports my reading?

In fact this goes to show that you might be indeed correct
Why would they limit you to move you character whit one rule and then alow a other to move him anny way.
That makes no scense

Mr_Rose
24-05-2012, 07:18
That would be perfectly fine if at least part of the footprint stays the same, what your
Promoting is that the unit could swap corners and magically appear over the other side, which is ofc ridiculous.

Do you have a page reference for this "the old and new footprints must overlap" rule of yours?

dral
25-05-2012, 08:49
Do you have a page reference for this "the old and new footprints must overlap" rule of yours?

I'd say that's the statement on p55 discussed above. Granted it can be read different ways (as happens with rules ;) ), but I'm of the opinion that once models are engaged they stay like that till a rout or the unit's destroyed.

Soundwave
26-05-2012, 18:16
No way!For a start corner to corner is redundant if your charging a big gribbly in or with blue unit into red unit combat maxi would throw your lets say blue infantry unit out to allow a more even distribution of attacks for red and blue units.Ok upon winning combat you would have at least 2 or 3 models from red units base in line with your gribbly on the other side of your blue units far flank where your intending to reform has shuffled leaving a single base wide gap.2 to 3 models in combat given base wide gap? No reform into nether region that is how we play anyway so models get "shuffled for maximum combat" as necessary and no "clipping" occurs.

Soundwave
26-05-2012, 18:29
And also to make that reform one unit or the other would have to in hindsight leave that combat to swap sides none of witch are able to do so.

jimbob
26-05-2012, 19:50
My issue with the specific example is it requires simultaneous combat reforms.
Where in the rules does it state that a reform or movement allows you to displace another unit?
Page 26, remaining moves:
"The player picks one of his units and moves it..."
Page 14, reform:
"You can completely rearrange your unit, so that it is facing any direction, by giving up all other movement and shooting."

It's clear that you complete your units' actions one at a time, and the dubious manoeuvre requires both units to elect to slide simultaneously.

If there was room on the other side for the beastie to slide to, then I'd agree it's legal. Dodgy, yes but not illegal.

Fubar
29-05-2012, 05:59
Do you have a page reference for this "the old and new footprints must overlap" rule of yours?

A standard reform allows you reararrange the unit around the centre of the unit, the combat reform FAQ means you do not have to keep the centre the same allowing you to rearrange around any part of the unit instead. It's quite simple.

T10
29-05-2012, 07:24
While it is clear that you infer that there is a restriction that "unit footprints must overlap", I don't see that the rules actually imply this.

It all boils down to the fact that it looks weird that a small unit with a 1" footprint unit makes a 2" shift left or right to a completely new location and it looks less weird when a big unit with a 12" footprint makes the same shift. Regardless of the size of those two units (in terms of both number of models and footprint), each model is moved the same distance in both cases.

-T10

Fubar
29-05-2012, 12:46
While it is clear that you infer that there is a restriction that "unit footprints must overlap", I don't see that the rules actually imply this.

It all boils down to the fact that it looks weird that a small unit with a 1" footprint unit makes a 2" shift left or right to a completely new location and it looks less weird when a big unit with a 12" footprint makes the same shift. Regardless of the size of those two units (in terms of both number of models and footprint), each model is moved the same distance in both cases.

-T10

It doesn't specifically state that but pg 55 "It cannot be used to get a model (friend or foe) out of base contact with the enemy if it was in base contact before the reform was made" if you abide by this rule then your footprint will remain the same(except in the case of corner to corner where it can be slightly further across)

T10
29-05-2012, 12:54
Those same rules allow models to be moved out of contact with one enemy model A and into contact with a different enemy model B as long as model A the reform does not result in model A dropping out of contact with his enemies.

Though this will often result in maintaining the base footprint overlap it does not follow that it can be inferred to be a rule: It's not cause: it's correlation.

-T10

HurrDurr
29-05-2012, 13:00
I've never heard this argument before. The full quote is this (with the errata included):

"There are two special restrictions on a combat reform, however - it cannot be used to get a model (friend or foe) out of base contact with the enemy if it was in contact before the reform was made, and the unit may not reform in such a way as to contact a different facing on any enemy unit it is in contact with. The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish."

You're saying that just because it says you can contact a different enemy it doesn't say you can't get out of contact with the original enemy? Hmm, I see your argument. However I don't think this is the meaning of the last sentence, otherwise why would it be required? You could delete the last sentence entirely and it would have the meaning you state, because you could move without getting a model out of base contact with the enemy. The last sentence is clearly permission to move the model in contact with an entirely different model and out of contact with the original model providing they remain engaged with someone.

As you say it wouldn't in any way prevent the "sliding" manoeuvre in any case, but it would negatively impact the ability for characters to move around combats with a combat reform.



Yeah, quotes would be good because as I see it the only restrictions on using Flight movement is that you are specifically disallowed from flying in a pursuit/flee move but that's the only time you are not allowed to fly.

Once again, what is the answer as to whether my 30-strong unit of furies in a single line can use their Flight move when working out their maximum reform distance (i.e. 2xM)?

The rule you referred to about restrictions on using flight movement for pursuit and fleeing is the only rule in the book I was talking about. It was in response to a bit of logic T10 was using to reinforce the idea that even if you prove a unit can't slide through another, fliers could still slide "fly" through/over a unit. I was referring to that rule because they dont even allow fliers to lift off while chasing men running for their lives, it seems in keeping with that logic that they couldnt lift off and land in the middle of a battle itself. Two arguments neither are in the book but there are almost identical situations to the one he described, which aren't aloud. sorry for confusion here.

dral
29-05-2012, 22:41
Just re-reading the rule again I think another restriction should be considered. From pg 55 " The most common usage of a combat reform is to turn to face the enemy (if attacked in the flank or rear), although it can also be used to bring more models into the fight by increasing the unit's frontage."

Do that mean that a combat reform must do one or the other? This means the move isn't valid as the reforming monster hasn't moved to change face, nor has it brought more combatants to the fight. This limits the maneuver to turing to face or sliding more troops in.

Mr_Rose
30-05-2012, 00:59
No it doesn't. The form "the most common <list of things>" implies there are other, less common things not on the list, ie that the list is not comprehensive, just exemplary.

Lord Solar Plexus
30-05-2012, 10:59
This is a actually the very first time I hear that sliding is still in the game. My understanding was that it went away with 8th and the loss of that old sliding "neat looks, will be abused, please don't abuse" FAQ. Not that my ignorance has any particular bearing on the validity of any rule, I just wanted to express my surprise as a kind of preface.

While I agree with Mr Rose that the two most common intents for a combat reform mentioned are only examples, sliding is not mentioned. We cannot assume that it is allowed for the sole reason that it is not mentioned. There is no other mention of sliding units that I am aware of. As far as I can see there still are only two methods of reforming: A normal reform only allows a change of facing or a de- and increase in ranks, so the same does have to apply to a combat reform. While the removal of the "same centre point" restriction allows far greater liberty, most importantly a decrease in ranks, it also only enables this shallower formation. You're still restricted to those two ways of reforming unless a sideway move is explicitly mentioned.

Of course this means that sometimes units stay locked clipped, especially single-rank units. I therefore believe that our monster is more or less stuck (it can only reform by changing facing) and that the same holds true for some of the single-rankers in subsequent diagrammes.

dral
30-05-2012, 19:51
I must admit that effect of 'sliding' seems allowed, although I don't believe you are just pushing the unit along. You increase the files, as the centre can move this can be on the left or right, and reposition the command models as required. I'm not sold that this maneuver can result in all the models in the unit moving though, the reform is single unit maneuver and must happen about someone. The restriction on move distance seems only be there to control abuse when going to thin formation from a massed unit not to allow a reform to include movement of the whole unit.

Capt._Jaelinek
01-06-2012, 04:16
T10 - I would say that no the OP reform is not legal. After reading the entire thread and searching the BRB I could not find anything definitive, but combat reforms follow most of the rules for normal reforms. As a monster is a single model, and this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the BRB rules and comments in this thread, that a monster can change facing or slide, but cannot move through, over, under or around another unit as described in the first post. I don't think a flying model takes flight during a reform, but it's not explicit in the BRB.

I think part of the question falls back to if the BRB doesn't say you can do something then you can't and I could not find any rules that I could interpret as allowing this type of reform during a multiple combat.

You could slide that monster from one corner to the other in my interpretation in a single combat, but it does go against the spirit of the rules. I know it's in the fluff section, but a reform is intended to bring more models into the combat. Sliding can certainly do that.

I think I would call 'shennanigans!' against a opponent and dice it if they were adamant.

warhammero
01-06-2012, 22:30
If the fliying unit fly to the other córner then Is not longer in combat, then Is not posible that a unit leave a combat (just running or dying) Is diferent when you reform a unit because the unit never leaves the combat just some minis inside the unit.

Lord Inquisitor
05-06-2012, 17:43
This is a actually the very first time I hear that sliding is still in the game. My understanding was that it went away with 8th and the loss of that old sliding "neat looks, will be abused, please don't abuse" FAQ. Not that my ignorance has any particular bearing on the validity of any rule, I just wanted to express my surprise as a kind of preface.
This is the first time I've heard anyone have issue with a slide as a combat reform! As far as I knew it was standard procedure.


While I agree with Mr Rose that the two most common intents for a combat reform mentioned are only examples, sliding is not mentioned.
Seems to me that the intent of the second example is to bring more models into the fight. Expanding frontage is perhaps the most common way of doing this (not sure) but sliding is hardly an "abuse". It simply allows you to "bring more models into the fight".


While the removal of the "same centre point" restriction allows far greater liberty, most importantly a decrease in ranks, it also only enables this shallower formation. You're still restricted to those two ways of reforming unless a sideway move is explicitly mentioned.
Actually there's no such restriction. The exact rule is this:

"Keeping the centre point of the unit the same, arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish. Remember that none of the models in the unit can move more than twice their Movement rate."

Without the centre point restriction, you simply place the unit in a new formation anywhere you wish. Combat reforms have two additional restrictions, that you can't get anyone who was in base to base out of base to base and you cannot engage a different facing (and this last restriction really seems to me to be directed to prevent units sliding around the side, although as has been pointed out earlier it is possible to try to skirt round the side in very specific circumstances with a turn). This prevents you placing your unit anywhere on the board!


Of course this means that sometimes units stay locked clipped, especially single-rank units. I therefore believe that our monster is more or less stuck (it can only reform by changing facing) and that the same holds true for some of the single-rankers in subsequent diagrammes.
Which is a terrible resolution. That's just awful! Why on earth would you want a rule where you couldn't reform two units into proper, honest contact? Quite aside from the fact that nowhere have you shown that it isn't legal to slide - the best you can do is point out that it isn't explicitly given as an example - the end result is a screwy mechanic! It's like you don't want to give in to some rules-lawyer loophole when the loophole actually brings them game back to play as intended!

Besides, even without sliding, you can still slide. Observe.

142161

At the very least this is legal (please agree or my little head will explode). I personally haven't found any argument that actually shows you can't slide and it is a simple and logical solution. The errata specifically prevents you sliding around the side of a unit, so I can't see any reason that sliding isn't perfectly intended. But even if you still don't agree, you can certainly reform in the manner shown above, which will achieve the same effect, just with a whole bunch of unnecessary model moving rather than sliding them along.

Confessor_Atol
05-06-2012, 18:25
What he said....

Seriously, everything LI just said, is in-line with the spirt and the text of WHFB. +1

jaysta
16-06-2012, 02:42
I really don't know regarding the monster teleport. Nothing seems to disallow it, but it is certainly a little hrmmm.

I want to explore a little some extreme points of 'the slide'.

consider the following

.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
..........................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Assuming A has enough movement, can this become:?

.................................................. .....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
..........................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

The same number of models are in base contact.

The next part of the question is, who gets to reform first? The person who won combat gets a chance, then chance goes to loser (assuming they pass the leadership test)? Or winner decides who gets to reform first, eg gives first chance to opponent, who may decide to reform, or not, then based on that the winner goes? Or some other method I haven't described, eg roll dice.

IMO the who gets to go first is really really important. One will usually want to shift combat alot to avoid/allow new charges, and the other wants to maximise contact with existing combatants.

Assuming both can do it, in the above situation, we can get:

.................................................. .....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
.................................................. ...................................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBB

Thoughts?

T10
16-06-2012, 08:10
I really don't know regarding the monster teleport. Nothing seems to disallow it, but it is certainly a little hrmmm.

I want to explore a little some extreme points of 'the slide'.

consider the following

.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
..........................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Assuming A has enough movement, can this become:?

.................................................. .....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
..........................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

The same number of models are in base contact.

The next part of the question is, who gets to reform first? The person who won combat gets a chance, then chance goes to loser (assuming they pass the leadership test)? Or winner decides who gets to reform first, eg gives first chance to opponent, who may decide to reform, or not, then based on that the winner goes? Or some other method I haven't described, eg roll dice.

IMO the who gets to go first is really really important. One will usually want to shift combat alot to avoid/allow new charges, and the other wants to maximise contact with existing combatants.

Assuming both can do it, in the above situation, we can get:

.................................................. .....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
.................................................. ...................................BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBB

Thoughts?

1. You can't flip unit A in this manner. Though you keep the same number of models in contact with an enemy, you need to reform in such a manner that the ACTUAL models in contact with an enemy before you start the reform are in contact with an enemy (fewer enemies or a different enemy is acceptable) after the reform is completed.

The distance unit A can "slide" is ultimately limited: after the reform it must (at the minimum) have one model in contact with the leftmost model in unit B.

2. If two players want to make combat reforms then they must first indicate those units that will make combat reforms (make Ld tests as necessary), then roll off: the winner decides which player makes all his combat reforms first.

3. With very small units, both can slide a limited distance. If units A and B were each ONE model, then (at the most) one could reform from base contact with one corner to the other corner, and then his opponent could repeat the process.

dral
30-06-2012, 22:12
I'd say no. You move over, you're reforming.

dral
01-07-2012, 09:33
The rules are clear that you cannot take models out of contact, i.e. you must keep the same models in base to base, but we discussed here earlier whether that means the enemy models can change. The rules state you can end in contact with a different enemy, my reading is that is in addition, others take that as allowing you to substitute the enemy model.

T10
01-07-2012, 16:04
I have a question regarding this new "slide" technique. if i am making the combat reform can i move the opponents units to remain in contact with the same amount of models but shifted over?

...

see how the opponent's unit "A" moves to the left to remain in contact with my reform.

No, you only get to reform your own units.